Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The ldd-based dpkg-shlibdeps is braindamaged in a major way.
All based on the assumption that indirect dependencies are not only allowed, but a good thing. Last time I suggested such a thing, Manoj and Christian beat me about the head till I shut up (see d-policy archives).
Do you have any idea of approximately when or what the subject was? I have gone through the index and haven't seen an obvious subject.
I am confused, are you saying indirect dependencies are a bad thing and agreeing with what I wrote about ldd-based dpkg-shlibdeps? or are you saying they are a good thing?
--
Joel Klecker (aka Espy) Debian GNU/Linux Developer
<URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<URL:http://web.espy.org/> <URL:http://www.debian.org/>
